2 Tim 3:16 which scripture?

[Marie_Gregg]

Okay, so this whole thread brings up an entirely different question for me:

Did the NT writers know they were writing Scripture? Yes, it’s obvious to us that it’s Scripture, but…well, when Paul sat down to write a letter to those fractious Corinthian Christians, did he know he was inspired and led by the Spirit?

I’m probably opening a big can of worms, but I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;8591124:

Well if we do not know the 22 books who can we say it is not the same 39 configured differently? You seem more definite than the facts give us in my opinion.
What I have read is that other Jewish sources gives us the 22 as being the present Jewish/Protestant canon except Esther possibly.
The reason that you do not know who fixed it is because no one knows. What we do know is that Josephus indicates it is fixed. Not the how. I do not have the quote but it indicates he thinks it is. And that might be the majority of Jews. It might not. But I think I would take it at face value and I believe it was set for Jews. How many Jews? I dont know. But this is not unusual Nicea325. Christians called parts of the NT scripture before anyone officially set it. So I think there is something to it.
I think maybe Protestants rely on it too much and Catholics discount it to much. Everyone is always on the extremes anymore. Politics. Religion.

My brother in Christ,

The OT canon is a hot debate and complex. However, in terms of Josephus stating it is fixed? I do not recall reading anything from Josephus were he specifically states it was fixed. The fact he provided a list does not confirm a fixed canon. I also strongly disagree that no one knows how it was fixed,which seems to be going out on a limb.

As I have stated to many who truly believe a Jewish OT canon was fixed prior to Jesus,where are the historical records covering such an important process? . Likewise,if it was already fixed prior to Jesus life,then why wouldn’t any NT writer or Jesus or the 12 ever mention it? What about the early church fathers?

The argument: No one knows is pure conjecture and speculation at best.

 

[BrianH]

BrianH;8591716:

My brother in Christ,

The OT canon is a hot debate and complex. However, in terms of Josephus stating it is fixed? I do not recall reading anything from Josephus were he specifically states it was fixed. The fact he provided a list does not confirm a fixed canon. I also strongly disagree that no one knows how it was fixed,which seems to be going out on a limb.

As I have stated to many who truly believe a Jewish OT canon was fixed prior to Jesus,where are the historical records covering such an important process? . Likewise,if it was already fixed prior to Jesus life,then why wouldn’t any NT writer or Jesus or the 12 ever mention it? What about the early church fathers?

The argument: No one knows is pure conjecture and speculation at best.

I read your post a couple of times. I think, emphasis on think, that we do not disagree as much as you might think. There is a difference of emphasis yes. But nonetheless we do disagree some.
Your points about NT writer, Jesus, or ECF saying it is fixed are very good points. **But **you see it works the other way as well. It has to
No NT writer, Jesus, or ECF said the OT canon was open.
Shouldn’t they have been arguing?

Here is what Josephus says. Thank you google

"We have but

22 books, containing the history of all time, books that are believed to be divine. Of these, 5 belong to Moses, containing his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind down to the time of his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in 13 books. The remaining 4 books comprise hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. From the days of Artaxerxes to our own times every event has indeed been recorded; but these recent records have not been deemed worthy of equal credit with those which preceded them, on account of the failure of the exact succession of prophets. There is practical proof of the spirit in which we treat our Scriptures; r, although so great an interval of time has now passed, not a soul has ventured to add or to remove or to alter a syllable; and it is the instinct of every Jew, from the day of his birth, to consider these Scriptures as the teaching of God, and to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to lay down his life in their behalf."

I think this supports my view. I will let anyone read and see if I might be slightly right or is Nicea right and I am just flat wrong:shrug:

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Let’s say that Paul quote exclusively from the Greek, that still wouldn’t prove our Church was correct in canonizing the DC’s. I think this is just a bad argument. The conclusion is correct, the DC’s are part of the OT canon, but not logical and impossible to defend. It’s a bad argument because we don’t know enough about the LXX to make that leap.

We have four manuscripts of the LXX available to us today. All of them have different books and all of the them are Christian manuscripts dating from around the fourth century. As far as I know, that’s what we have available to us with regards to the LXX and we have nothing that allows us to go back to the first century and make claims with any certainty about the books of the LXX.

Good point. Though all we have of manuscripts date back to the 4th century, we have St. Paul in the 1st quoting it word for word. This at least establishes that the Septuagint, at least the books he quoted, were understood as canon and studied prior to Christ’s coming. We may have all the books, we may not but we have an open canon and what we do have is plenty profitable for teaching.

I could not agree more. They are used by Catholics in some apologetics argument and a few Protestants to defend the accuracy of particular translations. Neither of which I think it adviseable.

I need to read about the debate about accuracy of particular translations, any material you suggest? That’s a new one to me.

But the reason I brought up the dead sea scrolls is the debate against the deutro books having no Hebrew scripture connection, and the finding of those scrolls sort of shut down that debate. Well, at least for three books

As far as my original question, seems stating that the Greek and Hebrew texts are what St. Paul was referring too as “all”, as all NT writers quoted both. Though true, we cannot know with 100% certainty that what we have as the Septuagint and Hebrew text is complete, which is one of the reasons why we have an open canon.

Still no response of the reason why Protestants still omit the deutro books

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;8591760:

I read your post a couple of times. I think, emphasis on think, that we do not disagree as much as you might think. There is a difference of emphasis yes. But nonetheless we do disagree some.
Your points about NT writer, Jesus, or ECF saying it is fixed

are very good points. **But **you see it works the other way as well. It has to
No NT writer, Jesus, or ECF said the OT canon was open.
Shouldn’t they have been arguing?

Here is what Josephus says. Thank you google

Quote:

"We have but 22 books, containing the history of all time, books that are believed to be divine. Of these, 5 belong to Moses, containing his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind down to the time of his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in 13 books. The remaining 4 books comprise hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. From the days of Artaxerxes to our own times every event has indeed been recorded; but these recent records have not been deemed worthy of equal credit with those which preceded them, on account of the failure of the exact succession of prophets.

There is practical proof of the spirit in which we treat our Scriptures; r, although so great an interval of time has now passed, not a soul has ventured to add or to remove or to alter a syllable; and it is the instinct of every Jew, from the day of his birth, to consider these Scriptures as the teaching of God, and to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to lay down his life in their behalf."

I think this supports my view. I will let anyone read and see if I might be slightly right or is Nicea right and I am just flat wrong:shrug:

I am sorry,but perhaps you have a misunderstanding of the term fixed canon? No where in the above does Josephus clearly state the Jews without a doubt had a fixed canon. He briefly mentions every event has been recorded…in reference to what events? The canon? If so,then where are other historical documents or primary sources confirming such an event happened and by whose authority was the canon fixed? The Sadducees? The Essenes? The Pharisees?

Exactly! IWhy would they argue about something (a fixed or open canon) which perhaps was not an issue to begin with or an idea at the time;hence a fixed canon? A fixed Jewish came much later in opposition to growth of Christianity as was the case with the entire canonization of the Bible due to many heretical teachings in the early church.

 

[pablope]

Okay, so this whole thread brings up an entirely different question for me:

Did the NT writers know they were writing Scripture? Yes, it’s obvious to us that it’s Scripture, but…well, when Paul sat down to write a letter to those fractious Corinthian Christians, did he know he was inspired and led by the Spirit?

I’m probably opening a big can of worms, but I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts.

My thoughts…I do not think they did. Mark wrote because the Roman christians asked him to put into writing the preachings of Peter. Luke’s gospel is a long letter or epistle to someone. John wrote to supplement the other gospels. And you know why Paul wrote letters.

Consider the letter to Philemenon. Should it even be in scripture?

There were other early writings considered scripture, like the Epistle of Clement of Rome, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas but did not make it into the final Bible. Likewise, there were disputed writings that made it, like Revalations, Hebrews, Epistle of Jude.

These letters/writings were read in the liturgy…as other writings surfaced, these were also read. Hence, one of the reasons for compiling the canon…to have a standard set of readings during the Liturgies.